Dnf Forum addedd Contexual advertising

[Domo Sapiens]

Originally posted by generic
ding dongs, was that like twinkies except black and creme filled?

Yep...
BTW Twinkies might dissapear : http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...fer=news_index

[generic]

yeah, that is a good one

I like pincha, I'm not sure though if that is how it is spelled

[generic]

poor twinkies, victim of the excessive animal flesh diet

oh well

[218]

Oh no! Not HoHo's too!

[bidawinner]

here you go Nexus..Yeah I remember when Microsoft wasgoing to integrate smarttags into it's browsers..

This guy sums it up nicely

In my book, this is just wrong. I've got nothing against advertising, but placing links on other people's web sites is right up there with framing sites without permission. Framing without permission has lost in some key court battles, and I'd expect TopText and other "graffiti" style tools can expect similar losses when someone inevitably takes them to court.

TopText, as you would imagine, disagrees. No one has threatened it with a lawsuit so far, and it expect to prevail, should that happen:

"Our legal counsel has been aware of everything and is telling us to press forward, that everything is in accordance with the law," McGarry said.

In addition, TopText does make a legitimate argument that its users have rights. Some users no doubt indeed want TopText and like the links it provides. These users have every right to see the web in the way they want, using the tools they want, the company says.

"That's the way the Internet is today. The users choose where to go, what browsers to use, what fonts they view web sites in, what colors they like," said McGarry, who sets hyperlinks in her own browser to appear in pink.

This is the real crux of the argument over TopText and similar tools. Whose rights are most important? The users or the authors?

I suspect it will be the site owners that prevail. I think there is a strong argument that TopText is rewriting an author's material without the author's permission. Apply it to the real world. Some readers might like an annotated version of a popular novel. However, unless you own the copyright to that novel, you can't simply publish your own version. To me, TopText is republishing without permission.

eZula says it is listening to feedback from site owners but has no immediate plans to allow them to opt out from TopText links. Given this, you might try some third-party solutions listed below, express displeasure directly to eZula or perhaps those advertisers making use of TopText links. And, if you got the software installed without knowing or wanting it, uninstall instructions are below.

I had one last question for eZula. Would there be any problem on their end if Microsoft decided to move ahead with Smart Tags? There was a long silence at that one, then a plea that they'd have to look into it more, before McGarry ultimately said that if that's what the user wants, so be it.

[safesys]

In my book, this is just wrong. I've got nothing against advertising, but placing links on other people's web sites is right up there with framing sites without permission.

big difference.

[218]

"That's the way the Internet is today. The users choose where to go, what browsers to use, what fonts they view web sites in, what colors they like," said McGarry, who sets hyperlinks in her own browser to appear in pink.

HAHAHAH ROFL, most users just slide through the internet helpless in a whirlwind of confusion. How could she be so naive.

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by safesys
big difference.

LOL..I waswaiting for you..

No not a big difference ..the content on forums is a collection of articles written by members..forum owners do NOT own the rights to there members content UNLESS the member has waived those rights..

Most forums do not have have such waivers..they include a lot f oter stuff but rarely wil you find a forum that says that by signing up with them you are signing away the rights to your articles.

[Nexus]

bidawinner... without reading more than a couple of sentence, I will point out once, and this will be the only time, that I agree that posting ads on SOMEONE ELSE's WEBSITE is wrong. It is DIFFERENT if it is on YOUR OWN WEBSITE. Your beef, as I understand it, is that you feel you are posting *YOUR* content to a website, and feel you should have final say in how that content is manipulated. On that note, and ONLY that note, do I say that I both agree and disagree. I agree that you have final say, I disagree that your "final say" is "a la carte". Either participate in the website or DO NOT. You can't post your messages and then feel entitled to run the website.

If the OWNER of the website values your posts, he/she will listen and respond. If he/she does not, you can always leave. In some cases, you can even request that your posts be summarily deleted, so that he/she cannot use the new practices to benefit from your past contributions.

If you wish to change the argument or misinterpret what I'm saying, its your decision. But, I felt it was important to try to clarify what is missing in your post above.

Simply said...

I agree that:
MICROSOFT does not equal WEBSITE OWNER
GATOR does not equal WEBSITE OWNER
EZULA does not equal WEBSITE OWNER

I disagree that:
FORUM POSTER equals WEBSITE OWNER

I assert that:
WEBSITE OWNER equals WEBSITE OWNER

CONTENT RIGHTS HOLDER. Who does this equal?

That's where the discussion begins and ends.

~ Nexus

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by Nexus

That's where the discussion begins and ends.

~ Nexus

again ..wrong.. that's where it ends with you because you take a pacifist look at life.. you move on instead of fighting battles.. you'd rather let someone else fight the battles on right and wrong, legal or not. ou dont need the aggravation..I fully understand ..I dont needtheaggravation on a lot opfthings in life.. but I am not about to let someoen takemy words and profit fromthem ..without sharing in the revenues.. this is business...why do you think they want your words to begin with ? !

Let them write their own content ..you want to use my content then PAY for it

Look at all the people that whine because they cant figure out how to make a buck o the interent..but at the same time they let people STEAL from them all day long !


It's about Money ..it's always about money

DNF wants to use my content fine.. I'll write content for them all day long ...but you have to PAY for it.. if you try and steal ity..I will sue..

I have nearly 5000 Posts at DNF...thats a hell of alot of content.arethere any real men around any more ?.

i'm seriose it's as if no one has any balls to stand up themselves anymore..

[218]

I understand your point bidawinner, but what about linkpop from the content, when the forum owner sells the domain name, will you want a cut, because you put the most content on the forum, therefore giving it a better google PR, therefore raising the value of the domain?

[safesys]

Alternatively, they simply don't agree with you.

[bidawinner]

look...this thread has nearly 300 views in just a matter of hours... a business person would look at thhis and try and profit off it..

a ethical business person would send you an offer..

Dear sir, We appreciate your participation at dnf your post are filed with insight, controversy and always entertaining.
At DNF we are adding a new advertising program that can beniefit not only DNF but also our members. We would like to offer profit sharing in a contexual advertisng program.
We only need your permission to add these links to specfic keywords in your posts .
By signing up as an affilaite for xyz advertisng program the more you post at DNF the more you will earn, etc..


that is how a program SHOULD be implemented

Instead they STEAL your content and take all the profits..

[safesys]

to repeat, you posted it there of your own volition. using words like "steal" is just emotive posturing.

[Domo Sapiens]

The funny part is that the whole thread is "Nothing that a little disclaimer won't take care of "